In last April’s Nightstand post, I gave a short review of The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Acts of the Apostles by Albert C. Winn. I spoke positively of it as a beginner’s commentary, restating and clarifying the text with bits of historical commentary throughout. While the mature believer with a lot of background already may not find it useful, it is a good source for the new believer or one with little Biblical background.
Recently, I picked up another volume in The Layman’s Bible Commentary series, this time written by Eric C. Rust on Judges through 2 Samuel. I started reading in 1 Samuel, in conjunction with my daily Bible reading, and red flags were popping up on almost every page.
Explaining Hannah’s song of praise in I Samuel 2:1-10, the commentator suggests that this psalm is not actually sung by Hannah but is of a later date–since the song mentions a king and Israel didn’t have a king until later. The problem with this interpretation is that Scripture directly contradicts it. I Samuel 2:1 says “And Hannah prayed and said”. If Scripture is inerrant, then there is no other explanation than that Hannah did indeed pray this prayer, including the part regarding a king, even though there was not yet a king in Israel. That she should sing of a king despite there not being a king is understandable if one believes that God inspires the words of Scripture and was also revealing his plan of redemption (although only in part) to the people of Israel before it happened. That the God who reveals secrets should have a woman prophesying in the midst of her prayers is not at all surprising. But the commentator doesn’t take this approach. Instead of regarding the Scripture as infallible and inspired by a God who is actively impacting the events that would be recorded, he seems to regard Scripture as little more than a human record of natural events.
Perhaps I would not judge this first blow at Scripture’s integrity so harshly as I have if the beating had not continued on each page that followed.
Writing of the people’s demand for a king in chapter 8, Rust says
“We have two conflicting traditions….The first, recorded in this chapter….The second, recorded in chapter 9….The two cannot be reconciled, and it is generally believed that the first tradition, enshrined in the chapter now being considered, was a later one, reflecting many years of disappointing experience of the monarchy and embodying the teaching of prophets like Hosea, who regarded the kingship as a manifestation of divine wrath.”
Rust states that chapter 8 has Samuel reluctantly giving in to the people’s request for a king and that chapter 9 has Samuel wholeheartedly giving the divine stamp of approval to the people’s request–and that the two can’t be reconciled.
The suggestion that the two are irreconcilable is ridiculous. The narrative is straightforward.
1. The people ask for a king (I Sam 8:5)
2. Samuel is displeased and prays to God (I Sam 8:6)
3. God tells Samuel to give the people a king but to warn them of what a king will do (I Sam 8:7-9)
4. Samuel warns the people of what a king will do (I Sam 8:10-18)
5. The people insist that they still want a king (I Sam 8:19-20)
6. Samuel tells God what the people said (I Sam 8:21)
7. God tells Samuel to give the people a king (I Sam 8:22)
Now, while we jump over to focus on the young Saul searching for his father’s donkeys, the overarching narrative remains the same. God has told Samuel to give the people a king, but they don’t have one yet. Verse 15 of chapter 9 picks up the story.
8. God tells Samuel that the man who will be king will arrive the next day (I Sam 9:15-16)
9. Samuel sees Saul and God confirms that this is the one (I Sam 9:17)
According to Rust, Samuel’s author switches back to reluctance in Chapter 10 when Samuel declares to the people that “today you have rejected your God” (I Sam 10:19). Yet I see no discontinuity in the text. The people were indeed rejecting God as their king–but that doesn’t mean that God isn’t still the one in charge of getting them a king.
Anyway, I go off on the details. Suffice to say that I do NOT recommend this particular volume within the Layman’s Bible Commentary. The author clearly has a low view of Scripture and this view suffuses everything he says.
Rating:0 Stars
Category:Bible Commentary
Synopsis:A theologian who does not believe in Biblical inerrancy repeatedly creates conflict within the text where no conflict exists, shedding doubt on every page of his commentary.
Recommendation: Don’t read.